Standing Committee D

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Clause 94 - Arrest without warrant

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Hurst, on this fine spring morning. We want to raise several issues, and I am sure that the Minister will respond fully. Similar problems arise in this context as arose under part 4. We want to know to what extent the principle that a constable may arrest someone without a warrant will apply, and to clarify the relevant circumstances.
 It has already been noted with respect to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that the basic principle in relation to arrest without warrant remains, whether or not the offence attracts a sentence of five years or more. There have, regrettably but rarely, been cases in which constables overstretched their power to arrest without a warrant, and those were deemed an unlawful arrest. The provisions would most frequently be applied in commercial aeroplanes, so considerable expense and inconvenience might be involved. What reparation might result in the relevant circumstances? 
 We are told that the clause would enable the police to arrest suspected offenders, but that the person could not be arrested while he was a hospital patient. I do not know whether the background to the current rule, which I presume comes under the Road Traffic Act 1988, is relevant, but we hope that a strict interpretation will be applied and that there will be no circumstances in which a person might try to escape custody or arrest by putting himself in hospital, by whatever means. 
 It would be helpful to know whether the police constable would always have to be in uniform. If he was not in uniform, as set out in clause 93, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) suggested, was without his cap, would an arrest be unlawful? Presumably, airport police would, in most circumstances, make such an arrest, as they would be the most readily available. I think I am right in saying—you are probably more familiar with the circumstances than I am, Mr. Hurst—that, to take one example, Stansted airport does not pay the full cost of its policing. Much of the cost, especially if there is a high state of terrorist alert, is borne by the county council. Clarification as to who would pay any additional costs that might arise under the clause would be helpful. 
 Members will recall that Stansted airport is another of my interests—indeed, I have a continuing interest in 
 the British Airports Authority. I remind the Committee that airports such as Teesside international and Leeds Bradford international, which serve my constituency—we have recorded that, regrettably, Bagby does not have any international flights and is largely a recreational airport—are owned by local authorities. How will they be affected by any additional policing costs under the clause? 
 The clause refers to ''arrest without warrant'' for offences committed under section 89. We respectfully and helpfully argue that the Bill is defective. We all agree that it is an offence to be unfit for work through intoxication by drink or drugs, but airlines increasingly find that, rather than the crew, passengers boarding aircraft who are disruptive due to drink or drugs are the ones who put passengers at risk. We note that a private Member's Bill seeks to create a new offence. We respectfully and helpfully ask—as always, says my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge—why it has been deemed inappropriate to include such a new offence when the Bill was so long in gestation? 
 Such a provision would fit neatly into the Bill. Being unfit for travel could be included in clause 89, which relates to being unfit for duty. It is not only our airline personnel who put passengers at risk by being drunk or drugged, as crew and passengers are equally at risk from intoxicated passengers. Why has the offence not been included when it would fit neatly and specific behaviour could deem a person unfit to travel? 
 The clause could have applied equally rigorously in empowering a constable to escort and arrest a passenger who is unfit to travel, but the travelling public and Members have been left in a difficult position. Presumably, the Bill will complete all its remaining stages and go into statute some considerable time before any other Bill on a related subject. We would have liked such a provision to be extended across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Perhaps we could make that an offence and empower a police officer to arrest such a passenger without a warrant simply by amending the air navigation orders, although my understanding is that we would need primary legislation in that regard. It would have been appropriate to allow that to happen, however. 
 The number of disruptive passengers who endanger lives and the ability of an aircraft to take off is on the increase, which is a worrying development. One example is the recent incident involving football supporters returning to Glasgow from a match in Spain. That situation should have been addressed in the context of the Bill. Will the Minister explain why it was not? What is the legal position? Would the clause not apply to enable a police constable to arrest without warrant a passenger who was placing an aircraft at risk? 
 In 2001, there were 58 cases of drunkenness as an offence involving people deemed to be disruptive passengers who were putting the lives of other passengers and the crew at risk. However, the Department's latest statistics for disruptive passenger behaviour on UK aircraft reveal 1,055 incidents in the year to March 2002. Of those, 50 per cent. are classed 
 as significant and 5 per cent. as serious. Alcohol was deemed to be a contributory factor in about 45 per cent. of those incidents, and the police or security attended 196 of those reported. 
 We are told that section 61(2)(c) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 states that an air navigation order may carry a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. Accordingly, offences of endangering the safety of an aircraft, drunkenness on an aircraft and acting in a destructive manner—offences set out in the Air Navigation Order 2000—carry a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, powers of arrest exist only for offences with a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. The Air Navigation Order 2000 could have been amended to ensure that the Bill also covers disruptive passengers. Under the current rules, the police can report an offender for summons, but they cannot detain him while carrying out immediate inquiries, even if the aircrew or other passengers can identify him. That clearly puts those on the plane at risk.

David Cairns: What assessment has the hon. Lady made of the private Member's Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) is steering through the House? What effect would it have on the problem that she highlighted?

Anne McIntosh: I take the hon. Gentleman back to the rather lengthy debate in which I set out the issues in the context of that Bill. He was present, and I am sure that he recalls with some affection the great detail that I went into and the number of statistics that I produced with the help of the House of Commons Library. It would not be appropriate to return to that debate, but I am grateful to him for reminding me of that notable Bill. None the less, it would have been more appropriate had the Government tabled an amendment to this Bill rather than giving a handout to a worthy Back Bencher. The legislation has been in gestation for a considerable time, and this would have been an opportune moment to introduce an appropriate provision. Without one, airlines, their crews and passengers will remain at risk, and so too will police officers, for the reasons that I shall give.
 I am a nervous passenger at the best of times, even though I am married to an airline executive. I have not been on a long-haul flight—[Interruption.] That is another of my interests, but I told the Committee at the outset that my husband has spent 34 years in the airline business. In any case, I do not think that I am alone in being a nervous passenger, and I would not want to put myself at risk if I saw a disruptive individual who was the worse for drink or drugs. It would have been appropriate for the Bill to empower a police constable to arrest such people, and it is not fair of the Government to leave it to airline passengers or crew to do so. However, I repeat that it would still be timely and appropriate for the Government to table an amendment to the clause to grant such powers, and I invite them to do so during the remaining stages. 
 If we accept the clause, the police will be able to report offenders for summons, but not to detain them. A disruptive passenger can be identified only by aircrew or other passengers, which means—

Alan Hurst: Order. I remind the Committee that the clause is about officials, not passengers.

Anne McIntosh: Officials. Well, my point is that the clause is defective. It would be timely for the Government to extend its provisions and to create new offences, as I have described. We are told that it would be entirely appropriate to extend the power of arrest under the Bill to such new offences, although I am sure that the Minister wants to share with us some good reasons for not extending the provisions. We believe that the Bill is defective in its current form.
 The explanatory notes are silent on what constitutes a hospital for the purposes of part 4 and it would be helpful to have further clarification, although we did get some from the Minister of State, or perhaps from this Minister. We were told, for example, that a hospital on board a ship is not deemed to be a hospital. We are also told that a hospital is an 
''institution which provides medical or surgical treatment for in-patients or out-patients.''
 As the Minister will be aware, at most major airports, including Gatwick, there is a medical centre. If a passenger, who was perhaps very unwell, were taken to such a centre before going to hospital, would that centre constitute ''a hospital'' for the purposes of the clause and would being there prevent an accused person under clause 89 from being arrested?

John Randall: We discussed a similar scenario before but since then I have wondered, although I hesitate to suggest how the provisions might be improved, whether the clause should cover someone in hospital or en route to hospital. As the Bill stands, there may be a technical loophole, which would allow someone to be arrested before they reached hospital.

Anne McIntosh: Yes, I agree and I hope that the Minister will clarify that.
 Clause 94 differs from some of the clauses in part 4 in so far as it provides for arrest without warrant. I presume the implication is that the accused would be taken immediately to a police station. I believe, although perhaps the Minister will confirm this, that most airports have immediate access to a police station, where there might even be a police cell. What scope will there will be for police detention, or will the person will be arrested immediately and taken to a police station as the rules apply once the Bill becomes an Act? Where the person is not in hospital but is deemed to be so unfit and unwell as to be worthy of hospitalisation, under subsection 34(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a police constable is empowered to take a suspect to a hospital. Will the Minister confirm, therefore, that the provisions relating to detention in those circumstances empower a police officer to take the accused to a hospital rather than to a police station?

David Jamieson: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Hurst, on this fine morning. I appear to be in the driving seat today and I am sure that the Committee will be sad to learn that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has succumbed to an unfortunate illness and has now lost his voice. [Hon. Members: ''Oh no.''] I always say that bad news is always counterbalanced by some good news, and the Committee will be pleased to know that I am in very good voice and extraordinarily rude health.

Anne McIntosh: Would it be appropriate for us to pass on our best wishes to the Minister of State in the hope of a speedy recovery? It is a matter of regret that he has succumbed to the same lurgy that previously afflicted the Under-Secretary.

David Jamieson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be touched by the hon. Lady's concern.
 The clause gives a police officer the power to arrest without warrant a person whom he suspects of having committed an offence under clause 89. That will usually follow an initial screening breath test. The power to arrest a subject who has failed the screening test will enable a police officer to take a suspect back to the police station for the purpose of carrying out an evidential test to determine the exact level of alcohol in the suspect's body. The police have similar powers of arrest for other offences created through the adoption of relevant parts of the Road Traffic Act 1988. As with that legislation, hospital patients will be specifically protected from the general power of arrest. However, taking specimens from hospital patients will be permitted in the same way as it is from other users of vehicles, as provided for by the 1988 Act and as proposed in clause 93. 
 The hon. Lady asked about police officers in uniform. I thought that we had clarified that in an earlier debate. In case the point was not clear to all Committee members, let me explain it again: the requirement that a police officer be in uniform is also made under the motoring breathalyser procedure. Therefore cases under the Road Traffic Act 1988 on the meaning of the established term will apply—''constable'' refers to any member of the police force, not to the rank of the constable. Courts have held that a police officer who was not wearing a helmet but who was otherwise in police uniform was still in uniform. That is a matter of case law. The hon. Lady may be more familiar than I with the case of Wallwork v. Giles 1969, and I will not bore her with any more detail on it. Of course, if the Committee wants more detail, I shall be happy to provide it. 
 The hon. Lady asked a couple or three times about the term ''hospital.'' Let me define it for her again. Clause 94(3) states: 
''In subsection (2) 'hospital' means an institution which provides medical or surgical treatment for in-patients or out-patients.''
 That is the same definition that is used in section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and it should be applied by the courts in the same way. The hon. Lady asked about the medical bay in an airport. I do not think that that could be defined as a hospital. The law would apply in exactly the same way to patients on their way 
 to hospital. That is probably somewhat beyond our remit, but if the Committee wants more detail, I shall provide it.

John Randall: As the Under-Secretary seems to have so many facts and figures at his fingertips, perhaps he will clarify the situation of someone who is en route to hospital.

David Jamieson: That was the point that I was making. If the Committee wants more clarity on people en route to hospital, I shall try to provide it. However, most of the information is contained in other legislation.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about damages. The law of damages would apply if the police made a wrongful arrest. She asked again about costs, although we had talked about them at some length in a previous debate. Airports contribute to the costs of airport police, although the police pay any additional costs. We and the police expect such costs to be small. If they grow for any reason, we shall have to revisit the issue. However, additional resources are not expected at present to be needed. 
 Clause 94 does not allow the police to arrest passengers, as the intoxication of passengers is already an offence under the Air Navigation Order. The hon. Lady did speed up the private Member's Bill, although perhaps not quite by the degree that she suggested in the Committee. We both made a short contribution to that Bill, which I was very pleased to support. It is always difficult with a Bill of that sort; if we add everything to it, we would have had a topsy syndrome, and it would have just growed and growed. It would have become unwieldy had we put more and more clauses into it, so we had to draw the line somewhere. However, I am pleased to say that the Government support the private Member's Bill and I am delighted that the hon. Lady supports it as well.

Anne McIntosh: It is your Bill.

David Jamieson: The hon. Lady says ''It is your Bill.'' That applies to a number of Bills introduced by her hon. Friends with which the Government are assisting. We are pleased to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw in his endeavour to change the law in that way.

John Randall: The Minister has said that the private Member's Bill is an important one, but he knows that such Bills do not always succeed, even with Government and all-party support. I have bitter experience in that regard. Can he assure us that if it does not succeed, the Government will find sufficient Government time in which to introduce it?

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman points out that private Member's Bills have a precarious journey through Parliament. Usually, when they are supported by Government and the Opposition, the journey is less precarious. However, he might like to prevail upon the shadow Leader of the House who has been known to destroy a Bill or two in his time. I have to say that that particular right hon. Gentleman did support me in a private Member's Bill that I brought before the—

Alan Hurst: Order. We have enough work to do in dealing with this piece of legislation without contemplating other legislation.

David Jamieson: I beg your pardon, Mr. Hurst. I was drawn from the straight and narrow by the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I hope that we can now agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman has been so generous to his colleague's Bill—he says that it is not a Government Bill, but it is peculiar that it was drafted by the Government and handed out to a Government Back Bencher—that I hope that he will be equally supportive of our colleague's Bill, which is number one of the private Member's Bills to be dealt with tomorrow. We wait to see whether our support is reciprocated.
 I note what the Minister says about additional resources and that matters are not expected to be hugely more expensive. We agree with that in that there are not that many cases in one year by comparison with the number of disruptive passengers, who will be the subject of a separate Bill. The Minister did not answer the question about what happens if a patient is arrested by the police officer under clause 94, but is so sick that he is escorted by the police officer to the hospital. I take it that it is implicit in what he said that, under the road traffic provisions—I shall seek chapter and verse in Wilkinson's ''Road Traffic Offences'' and am delighted to have been steered in the right direction—even while it is allowable for a specimen to be taken from a hospital patient, that should not interfere with the patient or jeopardise his condition. We may return to these matters at a later stage but, with those remarks, we consider clause 94 well and truly debated. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95 - Right of entry

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in
clause 95, page 41, line 35, at beginning insert, 
 'A plain clothes constable, a designated appointee of a testing unit or'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 70, in 
clause 95, page 42, line 1, at beginning insert, 
 'A plain clothes constable, a designated appointee of a testing unit, or'.
 No. 13, in 
clause 95, page 42, line 7, at end add— 
 '(c) in doing so must not endanger the safety of the aircraft and those persons on board.'.

Don Foster: I, too, am disappointed to hear that the Minister of State has lost his voice. I wish him well, and hope that he has a speedy recovery and quick return, not least so that he is available on Report and
 on Third Reading. He has made a number of promises to put things right in the Bill, and we hope that will do just that.
 The hon. Member for Uxbridge, who is not here at present, said: 
''The Committee will by now have grasped that I am a relatively simple person who cannot cope with complicated ideas.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27 February 2003; c. 405.]
 That may or may not be the case, but there is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has been tenacious on a number of occasions. Together with the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), he has pursued with some vigour the issue of uniforms and the question of whether the police should wear them. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary is in good voice. However, I am more delighted that he is considerably better briefed on this occasion than he has been previously. When the issue was last raised, when we were discussing the portion of the Bill that deals with shipping, the Under-Secretary, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Vale of York, said: 
''The screening test on board the vessel would be conducted by a constable in uniform. Evidential testing is to be done by the police, and I understand''—
 presumably he was not certain— 
''that any such test must be carried out by a constable in uniform . . . We may need to consider precisely what is meant by uniform if the hat has blown off and so on.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 March 2003; c. 422.]
 A few days on from that, the Minister has done his homework and he has got the briefing. Well done him for telling us what the briefing says.

David Jamieson: I think that ''understand'' in that context means that something is my knowledge, if that is of any help to the hon. Gentleman. I perhaps have a euphemistic way of expressing things and should be more forthright. However, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman notes that we now have the precise information at hand.

Don Foster: I am delighted that the Minister is now better briefed. The hon. Members for Uxbridge and for Vale of York and I are all much happier. However, it is unfortunate that the matter is not as simple as that. The question remains of why the constable must have a uniform to enter premises, as covered by the clause. Why must the constable have a uniform when requiring the provision of specimens, as covered in clause 93? Under clause 94, the constable does not appear to require a uniform to carry out an arrest, having entered and taken a specimen. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), suggests that we have suddenly moved on to the subject of strippograms, which might make a change from some of the other issues that we have been debating. There is certainly a question that needs to be answered.

Richard Bacon: Is it not plain in the Bill that the constable must simply dress, undress and then dress again?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right, although what he says applies only in respect of the arrest being carried out without a warrant. The Bill is silent about
 whether a uniform is required in the case of an arrest when there is a warrant. There is some confusion, and no doubt the Minister will clear it up, because he is obviously full of good briefing today. However, I shall leave that aside, because I am sure that he will give us an answer to all that.
 I want to raise a point that was mentioned in relation to amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which is whether it is always appropriate for a uniformed constable to enter an aircraft. I mention that because several people in the aviation industry, including the British Air Line Pilots Association—the union that represents the pilots—is genuinely concerned that there could be circumstances in which the presence of a uniformed officer in the very crowded area where people enter a plane could lead to undue anxiety among passengers. 
 BALPA has suggested that, although it may be appropriate in some circumstances for a constable to be in uniform, there may be occasions when it would be more appropriate for a constable not to be in uniform or for testing to be carried out by a separate plain-clothes unit. Those are genuine concerns, and I am sure that they have already been raised with the Minister, but I would be grateful to hear his response.

John Randall: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I wonder whether it would be more disconcerting for passengers to see someone whom they think is a fellow passenger suddenly arresting someone. That might lead passengers to think that there is more going on than is actually the case.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman may be right, which is why I have not proposed the deletion of ''constable in uniform'' from clause 95. I will give the hon. Gentleman time to read the amendment, but he will see that I am suggesting an addition rather than a deletion because he is absolutely right to say that circumstances will differ. All I am suggesting is that the Bill should allow the opportunity, from time to time and where appropriate, for a uniformed officer to enter a plane in the way described in the clause.
 Amendment No. 13 also relates to the effect that a uniformed officer entering a plane could have. The amendment merely makes it clear that the prime concern in anything that the uniformed constable does must be the safety of the aircraft and, thereby, the safety of the passengers. There could be circumstances in which a slightly over-zealous uniformed constable took action that the flight crew believed could endanger the aircraft. It must be clearly understood, therefore, that the uniformed police constable cannot do that. That is straightforward common sense. 
 Perhaps the Minister can assure me that that guidance would be given to police and that it is not necessary to insert it in the Bill. However, it would be useful for the Minister to put on the record words to the effect that nothing done by the police under the Bill would in any way endanger the safety of the aircraft and the passengers on board.

Anne McIntosh: I am delighted that we seem to have stirred up the Liberal Democrats. We were getting very worried that they were fading.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady need only look round at the faces of the entire Committee to see that I would not be alone in fading at the moment.

Anne McIntosh: I sincerely hope that the hon. Member is not succumbing to the dreaded lurgy that is going about.

Don Foster: As the hon. Lady has referred to the lurgy on several occasions and fearing that I may be coming down with it, I took the trouble to check in the Official Report how the word is spelt. I was quite fascinated to find out the answer.

Anne McIntosh: The answer is that a hot toddy is good for everybody, provided that they are not about to fly a plane or drive a ship—

Don Foster: Or a hovercraft?

Anne McIntosh: Or a hovercraft or a tram. Speaking of trams or the trolley bus—

Alan Hurst: Order. Perhaps we can leave this discussion and return to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that there will be an opportunity to return to the trolley bus.
 It was interesting that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was taken by our argument about whether an officer should be in a uniform. A plain-clothes constable could have been called an undercover officer, but that might have connotations that the Committee would find confusing and misleading. 
 The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says that a constable need not be in uniform. However, if he is not in uniform, he must take reasonable steps to produce documentary evidence that he is a constable before commencing a search. How will someone who is stopped know that he is being stopped by a police officer? Preventing a police officer from boarding an aircraft with a view to arresting somebody and resisting arrest are serious offences. I am surprised that the Government have not argued that the officer must always be in uniform because he could then be easily identified as a police officer carrying out functions under the Bill. I do not wish to do the Minister's job for him, but I hope that he will clarify that point. 
 If a person who is stopped believes that he has been accosted by a non-police officer and resists arrest, will the Minister confirm that the person might not be charged with the offences that were the reason why the police stopped him but with offences arising directly from the stop? That might happen if a person prevented a police officer from boarding an aircraft under clause 95. When talking about section 1(1) of the 1984 Act, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that stop and search would provoke as many crimes as it dealt with, if such matters are regarded as crimes. There are compelling reasons why an officer must be in uniform. 
 The hon. Member for Bath did not clarify his point about a designated appointee of a testing unit at great length. For the 1984 Act circumstances were envisaged in which a police constable should be accompanied. The explanatory notes for that Act give the example of 
 a constable entering a residence in an area with a strong ethnic character. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for someone from that background to accompany the officer. It would be useful to hear whether those circumstances will apply under the Bill or whether a constable will be expected to enter an aircraft alone to make an arrest in most circumstances—I imagine that that will be the case. 
 I turn to amendment No. 13. I assume that a police constable must not endanger the safety of an aircraft or persons on board when he enters it. I have difficulty envisaging circumstances in which that would happen. A police officer who tried to arrest someone who was unfit for duty under clause 89 prior to take off would be considered to be doing persons on the aircraft a favour.

John Randall: On an earlier clause we discussed sky marshals. As I understand it, the Bill does not apply only to British nationals, for whom carrying a weapon on a plane would be illegal. If a police constable went on to a plane and tried to arrest someone for whom he thought there was reasonable evidence that they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs and if that person was sitting next to a sky marshal, the sky marshal might think an incident was taking place and that might endanger the aircraft's safety.

Anne McIntosh: That is a pertinent point. The question of the sky marshal has not been elaborated in the Bill for understandable reasons, but there is a lack of clarity. My hon. Friend has raised a compelling point, which I hope the Minister will address. It would be appropriate to address the other issues in the clause stand part debate. I have great difficulty with the amendments. We exhausted these points in our earlier debate, but the Liberal Democrats are seeking clarification of other issues.

David Jamieson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State touched by the hon. Member for Bath's kind remarks. I shall make sure that they are passed on, together with his less kind remarks about whether he would be as good as his word. My right hon. Friend is always as good as his word.

Don Foster: I would hate the official record to suggest that I implied that the Minister of State would not be good to his word. I said that I hoped that he would make good his promises on the Floor of the House.

David Jamieson: I am glad of that clarification. It is not quite how I heard it the first time, but I am always pleased to have some clarification from the hon. Gentleman.
 Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 seek to give plain-clothes policemen and specialist testing personnel the same rights of entry as uniformed constables. However, the clause already provides that one or more persons can accompany a uniformed constable when he is exercising his right of entry. That would include plain-clothes constables. 
 Furthermore, as the use of force is permitted to gain entry, it is entirely appropriate that a uniformed officer should be present. I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge: more alarm could be caused if a uniformed officer were not present. The hon. Member for Bath asked whether the presence of a uniformed officer could lead to anxiety among passengers. I should have thought that the opposite was the case: if someone without a uniform entered the aircraft and sought to take a test from the pilot or another person on board the plane, that could occasion alarm. 
 I note with interest that the hon. Gentleman introduced for the first time the notion that a specialist testing unit might be given responsibility for the testing of aviation subjects. It will not have escaped the Committee's attention that we have—for the sake of consistency across transport modes—tried to replicate as far as possible the relevant testing procedures already established in road traffic legislation. The Transport and Works Act 1992 applies the same regime on the railways, and the police are familiar with the procedures. 
 The police have been testing drink-drivers for many years. The procedures adopted have been tested and approved by the courts many times. The permanent police presence at most major airports will also enable the rapid response to and testing of suspected offenders. Given that a criminal conviction may follow a failed test, it is appropriate that the police rather than a separate testing unit should be responsible for carrying out preliminary breath tests. 
 Amendment No. 13 seeks to require that a constable does not endanger the safety of an aircraft or those on board in exercising his right to enter an aircraft to test or arrest a suspected offender. I applaud the intention behind the amendment, but I assure the Committee that it is unnecessary. The clause already limits the officer to the exercise of ''reasonable force''. That term is commonly used to qualify the use of police powers and the police are familiar with it. As I said in answer to the previous debate, sanctions can be applied if somebody feels that a police officer has gone beyond the call of duty. What is reasonable force is a matter of fact and degree, and it depends on circumstances, especially the resistance offered by the suspect. In most cases, the force that is used will amount to little more than taking hold of a person's arm to prevent their running away. As resistance mounts, so the degree of force may increase. Nevertheless, the police officer must at all times use the degree of reasonable force that is appropriate in the circumstances. 
 In the aviation environment, the sensible exercising of the police powers will be supported by the power to enter with others—from airport management or security—who can advise the police officer on the spot. It is hard to envisage any circumstances in which it would be reasonable for the officer to use so much force that the action in itself endangered the safety of the aircraft or its occupants. Indeed, passengers may, as a result of police intervention, avoid the danger of a flight with a drunken pilot or crew member. 
 The hon. Member for Bath asked about the warrant. Constables would have powers to arrest 
 without a warrant. The example that he mentioned would be unlikely, because a warrant gives the police the power to arrest. It is not expected that the police will get warrants to make arrests under part 5; indeed, that would not be practical in most circumstances. A police officer must be identified before requiring a person to take the test. I am informed that for the actual purpose of arrest, the police officer does not have to be in uniform. I believe that that is the same for road traffic offences. However, the officer must be identified at the beginning of the procedure. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York referred to the police being accompanied. Clause 95(3)(b) makes it clear that the police could be accompanied and that they could determine whether or not that would be appropriate. The hon. Lady also referred to sky marshals. Constables must be in uniform for the purposes of the right of entry; it should be made clear to any sky marshal who may be present on the plane that it is the police who are attempting to effect an entry.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I was especially delighted by the compliment that was paid to me by the hon. Member for Vale of York. For her to say that I had not gone on at length is probably the greatest compliment that she is ever likely to pay me.
 I am still pondering the Government Whip's notion of policemen taking their clothes off. That would be a possible solution to the conundrum: police constables can carry out arrests out of uniform but, having identified themselves, they are required to be in uniform for the entry of premises or for the taking of, or requiring the provision of, specimens. 
 When the Minister tells the Committee that he is informed that the police do not need to be uniformed but need to be identified, he is merely giving us information about the current situation. He has not, however, explained why that situation exists, and why it should apply in the new circumstances we are discussing. He has a strong point in saying that in many circumstances the best way of a person being identified as a police officer is to be in uniform. 
 I am a great believer in police officers wearing uniform as much of the time as possible because it gives such a confidence boost to members of the public. Senior officers of the local force in my constituency occasionally come to meetings with me wearing ordinary business suits. I have suggested that it would be much more helpful if they came to my office, in the centre of the city of Bath, in uniform because it boosts the visible police presence. I accept the Minister's point about the benefit of wearing uniform, but there was no logic in his answer to explain the occasions when it is necessary under law to wear a uniform and when it is not. 
 More importantly, there may be circumstances in which the appearance of a constable in uniform could lead to heightened passenger anxiety. The Minister said that he would have thought the opposite. He is entitled to his view, but when BALPA, which I suggest knows more about the circumstances in aircraft, takes a different view from the Minister—although it, too, 
 could be wrong—it has a right to a more detailed response to its anxieties than merely being told that the Minister thinks it is wrong. 
 I say to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Vale of York that I have not gone on at length about alternative forms of testing. There are powerful arguments for saying that a different group of people could take on the responsibility for testing. The hon. Lady has expressed her concern about the validity and security of the current testing procedure. There are arguments for suggesting that testing could be carried out by people specifically and solely trained to do so, but the Minister's sole response is that we should stick with the police because they are familiar with the procedure. Familiarity with a procedure is no justification for sticking with the same organisation or group of people for all time. 
 We are about to consider the much-amended Licensing Bill, which proposes that magistrates should no longer have responsibility for awarding licences to public houses, and that responsibility should be given to a different body—local authorities. It has been argued that magistrates should continue to have that responsibility because they have long experience of awarding licences. The Government have responded by saying, ''No. In time the new body, local authorities, will develop the expertise and it is better for them to do so.'' The logic that the Government have applied to the Licensing Bill could be applied in respect of the testing regime, especially as there are concerns about the way in which those procedures are carried out, as the hon. Member for Vale of York rightly said.

David Jamieson: I am listening carefully the hon. Gentleman. Is he saying that there should be a specialist testing unit at every airport? Has he considered the cost implications of such a proposal?

Don Foster: No, I am not suggesting that but I am proposing that groups of people working with the police could be involved in that activity. The suggestion made by people in the air industry appears to have been dismissed and it should be given greater consideration. I have no particularly strong views on the matter but the Minister clearly does. He is entitled to them; I just find it odd that other bodies have conflicting views.

David Jamieson: To pursue this important point, the Bill creates criminal offences that could lead to imprisonment, so it is entirely right that the tests should be conducted by the police, and those who have experience of conducting them.

Don Foster: The Minister will be well aware that, increasingly, all sorts of tests, including specimen tests, are partly carried out by private sector organisations. The logic does not follow.

David Jamieson: We cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. The police take the sample, and another body might test it later. However, we are talking about what happens when a person is arrested and a sample is taken. The police have experience of
 taking such samples, and it is right and proper that they should take them.

Don Foster: That is current practice, and the Minister says that that practice should continue. As I constantly say, he is entitled to that opinion. I am merely sharing with the Committee the fact that many people do not agree with him, and that there are alternative practices that should be explored. We could go on about the issue at great length, but I do not think that you would permit us to, Mr. Hurst.
 More importantly, I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister gave on amendment No. 13 about the requirement for the police constable to ensure that his actions will not put the aircraft or passengers at risk; that was helpful. In relation to amendments Nos. 69 and 70, I am still confused. The hon. Member for Uxbridge has a ''simple man'' approach to the issue, but perhaps I am even simpler than he is.

John Randall: That is impossible.

Don Foster: Not necessarily. The hon. Gentleman is a tenacious man. I am even more confused than I was at the beginning of our deliberations about when it is important to wear a uniform. I understand the value of a uniform for identification purposes, but there are occasions when other forms of identification might be more appropriate. I fail to understand why uniform is necessary in some circumstances and not others. No doubt we will continue to explore the issue—and not least the blowing off of hats—later in the passage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise matters arising from the clause and not from the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bath.
 The Minister has told us a little about certain aspects of the clause, the reasons for suspicion mentioned in subsections (1) and (2), and ''reasonable force'' under subsection (3). It would be helpful if the Minister could identify who might, under subsection (3), accompany a constable entering an aircraft. The explanatory notes state: 
''Clause 95 provides the police with powers to board an aircraft or enter any place for an offence under clauses 89 and 90.''
 The explanatory notes seem to go a little further, if one may say so without being provocative, than the clause. Does ''any place'' refer to a medical centre to which a suspect might have been taken? This is an opportune moment for the Under-Secretary of State to elucidate what that means. I do not want the clause to run into difficulties in its application without knowing where, apart from an aircraft, a police constable will be empowered to have the right of entry. 
 We are also told that the clause states that the police ''may use reasonable force'' in exercising the powers, and that they may be accompanied when doing so. As I said, it would be helpful to know who may accompany the police constable, under which 
 authority, power or Act those people would be acting, and what the nature and limit of their powers would be. The hon. Member for Bath, who regrettably has had cause to leave his place for a moment, sought to ask those questions through his amendments. We seek clarification on those points, as the Bill is insufficiently specific. 
 I imagine that the powers are taken from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Section 17(3) relates to a constable in uniform and only applies to powers of entry to effect an arrest under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Again, we understand that a constable needs to board an aircraft to arrest someone, but are the Government saying that the place could be a lavatory in which the suspect had sought refuge? How wide is the vicinity into which the police will be empowered to enter? If it is not just the aircraft, what is the full extent of their powers? 
 We are told that ''reasonably required'' under section 17(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was deemed to be an objective standard, and that searches beyond that objective standard would be unlawful and may give rise to action for trespass. The explanatory notes on that subsection state that reasonable force may be used if necessary under section 117. Force is the application of any energy to the obstacle with a view to removing it. The Minister at the time told us most helpfully that reasonable force would simply be reasonable. Taking hold of an arm is one thing; inadvertently breaking the arm, especially of a female passenger, is quite another. That would obviously be very regrettable. 
 The explanatory notes to section 1(3) of the 1984 Act, which is of course the empowering Act in the Bill, further elaborates what constitutes reasonable grounds. The then Minister said in the Standing Committee that reasonable suspicion was an objective basis for action that could be tested in the courts, and that there must be some concrete basis for the officer's belief, which could be considered and evaluated by an objective third person. He also said that it was important to see the distinction between reasonable suspicion and mere suspicion. Mere suspicion is an intuitive guess, which is so personal and insubstantial that it cannot be articulated or submitted to scrutiny. Much of the criticism would allege that, if the distinction is tenable, officers will rely all too often on intuitive guesses, which involve stereotyping and are insubstantial. That sets out a good background with regard to the parameters of what is reasonable. 
 I have raised that issue because the Under-Secretary, being a reasonable person, must see that there could be grounds for testing it in the courts. The clearest of clarification would be helpful to the Government's cause. I simply hope that the concept of reasonable suspicion will be interpreted as strictly as possible. 
 The Under-Secretary's comments will have clarified for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge the relationship between sky marshals on a flight, who for good reasons have not been written into the Bill, and police constables. 
 On clause 93 and the right of entry to an aircraft or another place to test a suspect, the hon. Member for Bath must now be satisfied as to why it is right and proper for a police officer to be in uniform. If someone who was not clearly identified as a police officer was seen to escort a pilot off a charter flight which contained a lot of passengers waiting to go on their annual holiday, there could be a riot. If we can avoid such circumstances, it is best to do so. 
 Again, I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that the concept of reasonable suspicion in clause 95(2) will be interpreted as strictly as possible. As I mentioned in connection with clause 94, just as it would be unlawful to make an arrest without a warrant without reasonable cause, so the right of entry to an aircraft or, more particularly, another place that is not specified in the Bill could lead to a difficult situation. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will take this opportunity to specify which place other than an aircraft a constable is empowered to enter, and the limits of ''reasonable force''. 
 I hope that the Under-Secretary will also clarify that if a person is particularly aggressive, the police constable might be accompanied by other officers to enable the person to be taken away as peacefully as possible. Finally, let us say that a constable is accompanied by ''one or more persons'' who are not police constables. Will the Under-Secretary be good enough to clarify who precisely they would be? Perhaps he can explain why they have not been specified in the clause.

David Jamieson: The clause provides the necessary powers of entry to enable the police to deal with the offences created by this part of the Bill. It allows an officer to board an aircraft either to make an arrest or to request the provision of a specimen. The powers granted are substantially the same as those under section 6(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. An officer requesting entry must be in uniform, but is permitted to use reasonable force to gain entry and may be accompanied by others.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the other places referred to in clause 95(2). An offence may not occur in the aircraft. It may occur in a maintenance depot, an air traffic control unit or another place—for example, while the person is on stand-by and waiting to go on duty. We have to allow for those circumstances and for different places where the test or arrest can take place. 
 The hon. Lady also asked about the limits of reasonable force. The concept of reasonableness is well trodden and well understood in English law. Although the hon. Lady is a Scottish advocate, I would hope that she has a good understanding of the point. 
 The hon. Lady asked who could accompany a police officer. In some circumstances, where extra help is required, it could be another police officer. In other circumstances, it might be the airport management or airport security authorities. She asked whether we could say precisely who it would be. Of course not: I cannot provide a definitive list, but others could be called to the constable's aid in appropriate 
 circumstances. Listing precisely who it could be would be ludicrous and would stretch the Bill to far more pages than it has now. 
 On the issue of reasonableness, the hon. Lady answered her own question with her quotations. As I said, ''reasonable suspicion'' is a well-established term. It is right that a police constable has some objective grounds for any suspicion: he may have seen the relevant person staggering or drinking in the bar, or a responsible person working for the airport authority might have a reasonable suspicion that was passed on to the police officer in good faith. We cannot elaborate on every circumstance, but English law is fairly clear about what the circumstances are likely to be.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the Minister's comments, but some issues have, regrettably, not been adequately clarified. I specifically asked under what authority the one or more other persons would be acting and what the parameters of that authority would be. I asked the question in a spirit of helpfulness and co-operation because it is important to clarify the matter now, rather than place people in a position where their authority could be questioned when the Act is in force. I am a firm believer in clarification at the earliest opportunity, to ensure that the clause cannot be abused.
 The reasonable suspicion test leaves open several questions. The Minister is right that it is a well-established principle that has been in force for 19 years since the 1984 Act, but he acknowledged that a new offence is being created. We know from the example of the British Airways pilot who was escorted off the flight at Stockholm and lost his livelihood, which ran to about £100,000 a year, that the consequences can be enormous. It provided a significant lesson to his colleagues, but the provision also affects other places of work, such as maintenance depots, and other people, such as airport officers. It was one glass of wine that led to that particular pilot—I assume he was a gentleman—being escorted away. One hopes for certain safeguards against malicious reporting. We MPs are well aware that malicious rumours can have devastating effects, so I hope that the Minister has provisos in place in that regard. 
 The Minister's explanation was helpful, but I want to place it on the record that I am concerned about difficulties arising from the application of clause 95(3)(b) in respect of the authority of those persons. Further explanation of what is required to allow them to exercise that authority in good faith would have helped. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96 - Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be delighted—or even disappointed—to know that the debate will not be lengthy. He was good enough to clarify the basis of the regulations that will be submitted to Parliament
 under earlier clauses. Given that clause 95(3)(b) was insufficiently specific, will it now be specified more clearly who the persons may be? If not, that is deeply regrettable. It would be more helpful to have such matters clarified in the Bill. Will the regulations be subject to affirmative or negative resolution? We hope that all orders under part 5 will be subject to affirmative procedure.
 Do the Government intend to create a separate offence under a different Bill relating to passengers? That will require regulations under an air navigation order to enable them to sit comfortably with the provisions of the Bill. Does the Minister envisage that statutory instruments or regulations will be required under the Bill and subsequent Bills to create a separate offence relating to passengers as opposed to crew and others under clause 89? 
 Clause 96 loosely requires the Secretary of State to consult such organisations that he considers appropriate. We hope that employers, union representatives and other associations will be consulted. The British Air Line Pilots Association springs to mind. A plethora of employers and employees will be caught under the provisions. I hope that the regulations will have regard to the contract of employment between such parties; given the Bill's wide remit, such contracts will run to a considerable number. Will attention be paid in those consultations to contracts and terms of employment? I hope that the Minister will put my mind at rest and say that the regulations will be passed by affirmative resolution.

David Jamieson: I hope that I can put the hon. Lady's mind at rest—as I always try to do. The clause deals with the creation of secondary legislation consequent on the Bill. Secondary legislation will be needed only to amend its provisions in certain cases. It will not be needed from the start to make this part work. The clause confirms that secondary legislation resulting from such provisions must be made by statutory instrument and approved by Parliament under the affirmative procedure. That is appropriate, given that the regulations concern criminal offences that are potentially punishable by imprisonment.
 The Secretary of State is also required to consult appropriate organisations before amending the alcohol limits and the range of functions to which they are attached or before adding or adapting provisions from drink-driving legislation under the Bill. We discussed such matters at some length earlier on clause 95(3) and we gave a clear undertaking that we expect various organisations, and others to which the hon. Lady did not refer, to be consulted. The clause will give the necessary flexibility that may be required, for example, for future changes in alcohol limits. It will allow for changes in those authorities covered by the offence and, when appropriate, mirror a change that might take place in future under road traffic legislation.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that. The Minister said that the consultation under subsection (3) would relate to amending the alcohol provisions. Would it
 extend to my concern, which we have discussed at some length, about the inclusion of oral swabs? The Minister of State suggested that they might be considered. Does that mean that the consultations would extend to a different form of testing, or the taking of a different type of specimen? That would be a considerable change. At the moment, breath, urine and blood tests apply. This is a potential fourth option. I hope that there would be extensive consultation simply to explain to the respective bodies how those specimens would be tested and processed.
 The Government are right to say that, because of their gravity, the new offences that are being created, which are punishable by imprisonment, should be passed by affirmative resolution. We should prefer primary legislation, and regret the drift away from it, which has been a feature of the past six years under this Government. Otherwise, with the proviso that were any change in specimen-taking or testing to occur under road traffic provisions that would have implications for this legislation, those employer and employee organisations should be consulted, we are content. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 - Crown application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I seek a simple clarification: will there be no exclusions? I understand that the explanatory notes tell us that clauses 97 and 98 together apply the offences created to police and Customs personnel, but not to personnel operating on military aircraft. The offences under clause 97 would apply to civilian contractors employed by the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister confirm that the Queen's flight, in which the Government have an interest because the Prime Minister uses it on Government business, will be included—particularly with regard to clause 89?

David Jamieson: Clause 97 extends the prescribed alcohol limits to aviation functions carried out on or in connection with aircraft owned or in the service of the Crown. The exception concerns activities carried out on military aircraft by a person who is subject to service law. That exception is specifically addressed in clause 98. The Queen's flight would be covered.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98 - Military application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister referred to clauses 97 and 98. Clearly, they should be read together. I understand that the new offences that are created in the Bill will apply to civilian contractors employed by
 the Ministry of Defence working on or with military aircraft who are not subject to service law. Service personnel are subject to separate disciplinary procedures if found under the influence of alcohol or drugs while on duty. I have two RAF stations—Leeming and Linton-on-Ouse—and an Army helicopter station at Dishforth in my constituency, so the matter is of interest to my constituents. Under recent changes, civilian crews are covered, so will the Under-Secretary explain the relationship between the civilian laws, with which the Bill deals, and the military laws?
 My basic concern is that we might have two tiers of staff working at a military base—those working under military laws and those working under civilian laws. Has the Under-Secretary given any thought to any conflicts that might arise? That is especially important for my constituency. It also prompts the question of what would happen in any conflict—I am not thinking of only the Iraq conflict. Many civilians will travel with the military from such bases, should their services be required in either conflict or training. In those circumstances, would any change to the law apply? I assume that civilians would continue to be covered by civilian law and the military by military law. 
 Clause 98 quotes definitions taken from the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Army Act 1955. According to the explanatory notes, ''military aircraft'' means 
''an aircraft of the naval, military or air forces of any country; or . . . any other aircraft in respect of which there is in force a certificate issued in accordance with any Order in Council . . . that the aircraft is to be treated for the purposes of that Order in Council as a military aircraft.''
 The 1982 Act also provides that 
''a certificate of the Secretary of State that any aircraft is or is not a military aircraft for the purposes of this section shall be conclusive evidence of the fact certified''.
 Those definitions are important, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will clarify them. They raise the question about which rule applies to visiting military aircraft. Would they be equally excluded from the provisions? I would imagine that that is the case. 
 The definition also mentions naval aircraft. While my constituency does not have a navy base, navy pilots are trained at RAF Linton-on-Ouse. Is there any difference to the law applicable where a Royal Navy aircraft is on an aircraft carrier?

David Jamieson: Military personnel and civilian contractors working on or with military aircraft overseas are subject to service law, which prohibits them from taking alcohol or drugs. It is therefore unnecessary to extend the provisions of the Bill to such personnel. However, in the United Kingdom, the armed forces employ many civilian contractors, such as flying instructors, to work on or with military aircraft. It is right that such personnel should be subject to the same prescribed limits working on or with civilian aircraft. Clause 98 will ensure that they are subject to such limits.
 The hon. Lady referred to the Royal Navy. As I just explained, civilians working in connection with the Royal Navy will be covered by the clause. If a Royal 
 Navy helicopter was working solely with military personnel, those people would be covered by military law. She asked an important question about visiting military personnel. It has caught our attention and we are looking into it. We may need to amend the Bill further at a later stage.

Anne McIntosh: That is very helpful, but it raises a question: why were the Government insufficiently prepared? It is not a new point. Military personnel have been visiting our shores at every level from the headquarters at Northwood to local military bases such as those that I referred to in my constituency, and we have welcomed those visits. We have identified a considerable gap in the legislation, and I hope that the Minister will take steps to close it—otherwise we might feel minded to give some assistance in that regard.
 There could be problems of interpretation, and the clarification that military and civilian aircraft overseas are subject to service law is helpful. I hope that consequential amendments will be made if there are any changes under our road traffic laws relating to the drink or drug provisions under this legislation. 
 The Bill does not state whether the military people and civilians employed on military bases will be consulted, unless that is covered under clause 96. It is unclear whether those will be deemed to be organisations that the Secretary of State shall think fit to consult under that clause. I hope that that is implicitly the case, because if it is not that would be regrettable, as they will be affected by this legislation. We want visiting military personnel to feel welcome, and I am sure that we will explain the position to them through the official or consular channels—or by whatever is the usual way of informing them about such things—at the earliest opportunity before the Bill leaves this House. That would be appropriate. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99 - Territorial application

Amendment made: No. 81, in 
clause 99, page 43, line 18, at end insert— 
 '( ) Subsection (4) does not affect any rule of law or enactment (including an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament) concerning the right of a constable in Scotland to board an aircraft or enter any place for any purpose.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister fleetingly referred to his assessment that a large additional cost is not expected to arise from the Bill. The territorial application of clause 99 provides a good opportunity to question him more closely on the issue. The explanatory statement informs us that it is difficult to quantify the costs to the public purse of the introduction and enforcement of an alcohol limit for aviation. The Minister mentioned that many airports make a contribution to airport costs, but I am unsure whether they cover all the police costs, and this legislation could add significantly to those. The same
 issues with regard to police resources apply to mariners, we are told.
 The lower blood alcohol limit for aircraft crew and aircraft controllers would mean that a number of existing police roadside screening devices will need to be modified to be capable of indicating a fail at the new aviation limit. We are told that the anticipated cost of developing the necessary software changes, obtaining type approval and modifying a minimum number of existing devices would be in the region of £17,000. Is that a conservative estimate? Is it a definitive estimate? Might the limit go up or down? Precisely how many devices would have to be modified? As the Minister rightly said, we should bear it in mind that we are not just considering aircraft and airport terminals, but air traffic control, baggage handling and maintenance hangars. At many airports—for example, Stansted, with which you will be familiar, Mr. Hurst—the air traffic control tower and maintenance hangar are some considerable distance from the main passenger facility. I query the figure of £17,000 for the cost of modification. The Minister might want to revise that. 
 We are told that a limited number of more modern screening devices would need to be purchased by those police forces exclusively using older screening equipment not suitable for modification. Each device costs around £450, but the number of new devices required would depend on the extent of aviation activity in the police area. Bearing in mind the fact that many carriers will not be British, and will not necessarily be using the same terminal, that raises a question about the number of devices that would be required. 
 The Lord Chancellor's Department has said that the associated policy costs to the courts as a result of additional prosecutions could be absorbed within existing resources. Compared with his pension or wallpaper, those provisions might seem modest. This is an opportunity for the Minister to say that, bearing in mind the number of foreign, as well as domestic, carriers using UK airports, a considerable number of people may have to be tested. 
 We are told that the territorial application will apply to any 
''function or activity performed or carried out in the United Kingdom,''
 and any 
''flight function performed or flight activity carried out on a United Kingdom aircraft.''
 We seek clarification from the Minister that that will cover all US and any foreign carriers for the provisions of part 5 and that the territorial application will extend to any person using or flying into or out of a UK airport. For that reason, we believe that the costs may be considerably higher. 
 In the Government's view, the alcohol and drug provisions to which clause 99 applies will not require recruitment of more public sector workers, although there will be additional responsibilities placed on existing police officers. With the increased security 
 and current terrorist alert, that will be at a time when police resources are at a premium, so it would be helpful to know precisely how many police officers are required. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it will apply to all foreign carriers using facilities at our airports, baggage handling and air traffic control and other facilities falling within part 5, in which case there could be considerable implications for police time. 
 Will the Minister clarify whether flight function under section 91(1)(a) is indeed aviation function? I imagine that he will, for the purposes of clause 99, say that it covers all functions and that it is not limited to flight functions that will be covered in territorial applications. Clause 99(2) states that, 
'' ''United Kingdom aircraft'' means is an aircraft which is registered, in accordance with the enactment about aircraft, in the United Kingdom.''
 However, I hope that all carriers using facilities at our airports will be covered. 
 I also hope that the Minister will confirm that the Orders in Council mentioned in subsection (3) will be subject to affirmative resolution and that they will not be smuggled through under the negative resolution procedure. 
 There is concern in the industry over whether the words ''function'' and ''activity'' are used here only in relation to aviation function. Can the Minister clarify whether we are to understand that those words are used with regard to aviation function and to activity ancillary to an aviation function? If so, would it not be better and clearer to include a full definition? I hope that the Minister will see fit to give a fuller definition. 
 It may be normal to issue a code of practice. I know that the Department for Transport has had discussions with various parties in the industry, and it has been stated that there will be associated codes of practice for the testing provisions. However, it would be very helpful, to clarify clause 99, if a code of practice could be published, perhaps following consultation of the House and the industry. It is generally understood that the Bill will result in a tightly defined group of individuals being targeted for testing. I hope that that will apply to both foreign and UK carriers. It is important for the people working for those carriers that the defined groups are not misinterpreted. They should include only employees for whom impairment is an issue. It would be helpful if a code of practice could explore any potential difficulties and if the Department could keep an open door on continued dialogue on such issues between the industry and the regulators when drafting such a code. Are the Government minded to draft such a code? At what stage of proceedings might it be issued?

Don Foster: I want to pick up on two points that the hon. Member for Vale of York has made, and shall then add a further one. First, the hon. Lady rightly asked the Minister to suggest what costs might arise as a result of the applicability of this part under the territorial application described in clause 99. She referred solely to alcohol testing. As the Minister has acknowledged, we are a long way behind on drugs testing in comparison with what has been compared
 with what has been done on alcohol testing, but one assumes that there is no doubt in the mind of the Government that there is a need to carry out research and to develop accurate means of testing for drug offences. Can the Minister assure me that that work is going on? Will he acknowledge that costs will be involved in the drug abuse, as well as in the alcohol abuse, aspects of this part?
 Secondly, the hon. Lady raised questions on the definitions in clause 99(2) of ''flight function'' and ''flight activity''. She asked whether those were exactly the same as the definitions of aviation functions in clause 91. I am confused over why there are different terminologies, especially as clause 99(1)(a) refers solely to ''a function or activity''. Since we have had definitions of an aviation function, a flight function and an activity ancillary to an aviation function, I am not sure which definition clause 99(1)(a) refers to when it says ''a function or activity''. There is probably some confusion in terminology. 
 Thirdly, when we discussed part 4 of the Bill, on shipping, we were very clear that the areas covered were United Kingdom waters. I am sure that it is a complete error on my part not to have this knowledge, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure me that we are clear about what is meant by the phrase 
''carried out in the United Kingdom''.
 Reference has already been made to flights coming into, and leaving from, the United Kingdom, which would require them to be outside the immediate geographical area of the United Kingdom. Is there an equivalent to United Kingdom waters in respect of aviation?

Kelvin Hopkins: At a previous meeting of the Committee I referred to a rather frightening flight from Plovdiv, which I experienced some 18 years ago. I assume that if a flight on which the crew were drunk were to enter UK airspace, a passenger could quickly report the crew to the police at the airport after the plane had landed—safely, one hopes. I hope that at that point there would be sufficient grounds for testing and for taking action against the crew.
 In the case of cabin crew, the matter may not seem quite as serious. But we can imagine an emergency landing in which the crew had to look after children and elderly people and get them off the aircraft quickly. If the crew were clearly inebriated, the situation could be as tragic and dangerous as if the pilot were under the influence of alcohol. 
 I hope that people entering UK airspace on foreign carriers, which are perhaps not as responsible as some of the more established carriers in Britain, will be able to report crew who appear to be inebriated to the police and that action will be taken. If that were to happen, there would be hope that, in future, airlines would make absolutely certain that such things never happened on their aircrafts. Clearly, if the crew were taken away, the aircraft could not be flown and the airline would have all sorts of financial difficulties, as well as the loss of reputation. I hope that it will be easy for action to be taken once an aircraft has entered UK 
 airspace and landed at Gatwick, Heathrow or wherever.

David Jamieson: That was a helpful and useful intervention. The clause extends the provisions to aviation functions and ancillary activities, when carried out either within the United Kingdom or on a United Kingdom aircraft anywhere in the world. The clause also allows the Crown, by Order in Council, to extend the provisions of this part of the Bill to the Channel Islands or British overseas territories. The police powers of entry contained in clause 95 will not, however, apply in Scotland where common law already provides the police with the necessary powers.
 The hon. Members for Vale of York and for Bath raised the issue of costs. Three of the four roadside screening devices currently in use in the United Kingdom have the ability to provide a digital read-out of the level of alcohol in a specimen of breath. We are liaising with police representatives, the Home Office and the forensic science service to confirm the suitability of using that facility for the testing of suspects. However, we are aware that 14 of the 51 forces in the United Kingdom might be equipped with only the old screening devices, which might not be suitable for use at the aviation limit. It will therefore be necessary for those forces to acquire a number of the newer devices. 
 As the explanatory notes set out, the cost will typically be in the region of £450 per device. The number of devices required will depend on the area concerned and whether a permanent police presence is maintained at the aerodrome. A large airport, such as Gatwick, might require five or six suitable devices on its own, whereas the same number of devices could cover the whole of a county force area with no major aerodrome. The decision about the number of devices required and their deployment will fall to the respective chief constables in those areas. 
 The question of who is expected to pay has arisen several times in our discussions. Given that only a limited number of devices will be required, police forces will, rather than requiring the purchase of the entire stock of equipment, respective acquire the equipment as necessary. The development of a digital facility on screening devices should enable their use on the road as well as for aviation purposes. We are currently checking with police representatives to confirm which forces would need to acquire the new equipment. 
 Clause 99(1)(a) refers to 
''a function or activity performed or carried out in the United Kingdom''
 However, to answer the hon. Member for Vale of York, the provision would cover United States or other European airlines when appropriate. The offence applies in full to all staff employed by all civilian carriers visiting UK airports. I hope that that puts the hon. Lady's mind at rest. 
 The hon. Lady asked about a code of practice. We are discussing that matter with the Civil Aviation Authority. Any guidance to industry would, of course, be publicly available. 
 The hon. Lady also asked about the explanatory notes. In discussions with the Home Office and police representatives, we are examining the possibility of using an existing digital readout. Facilities already exist on three or four screening devices, and, although they will require fresh approval, it is likely that the cost will be less than the £17,000 quoted in the explanatory notes. 
 The hon. Member for Bath raised the important issue of drugs. As he will know, research is currently under way into roadside testing. It is a complex and difficult problem and the different effects of various drugs are being assessed. It is difficult to assess what level of impairment drugs cause. Whereas we now have clear indications of the effects of alcohol, the effects of drugs are far less clear. There is another complication: drugs are often used in combination with other drugs or alcohol. If some form of drug test were to be introduced in the future, provisions could be introduced to make the regulations apply to aviation. 
 ''Flight function'' refers to UK aircraft abroad and a wide range of activities is covered in the UK—maintenance and so forth.

Anne McIntosh: That raises the question of who would perform the testing on the aircraft while it was abroad. We have been told that the police perform testing in UK ports and ancillary facilities—in airports, maintenance hangars and baggage handling areas. Who would be required to perform the testing for a UK flight out of Stockholm or Hong Kong?
 There is genuine concern in the industry about the definitions of aviation function, ''flight function'' and ''flight activity''. Why have the words ''function'' and ''activity'' been used? We heard the Under-Secretary's reply and we know that the provision will apply in subsection (3). However, for our understanding of the Bill and its applications, for the courts that may be asked to rule on the provision, and, especially, for the industry that will be subject to the provision, it would help if the clause defined 
''a function performed or activity carried out on an aircraft which is registered''
 for the relevant purposes. The provisions are, I note, covered by common law in Scotland. I hate to draw the conclusion that Scots law is superior to English in this respect, but it is regrettable that the same common law provision does not exist in England. We have identified a problem in this debate, with respect to the difficulty of testing for drugs. Regardless of whether someone is driving a car, flying a plane or undertaking related ancillary duties, drugs and alcohol remain in the blood and affect the body for different periods of time. That fact will lead to difficulty. 
 I regret that the Minister has raised more questions than he has answered. I think I understood him to say that clause 99(1) applies to most carriers in certain circumstances, whereas it applies to all carriers visiting UK airports. I wonder if I misheard.

David Jamieson: I do not recall saying that. It applies to all carriers in United Kingdom airspace.

Anne McIntosh: And presumably to all UK carriers wherever they operate. It would have been preferable for functions performed and activities carried out to be defined. The issue has already caused controversy and disquiet in the industry. It is incumbent on the Minister to let the Committee know who will carry out drink and drugs testing for the purposes of part 5 for a UK carrier flying back from, say, Hong Kong or Stockholm.

Don Foster: I do not know whether the Minister has raised more questions than he has answered. He has certainly not answered a question that I raised. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who repeatedly referred to United Kingdom airspace, but did not use the phrase
''carried out in the United Kingdom''
 was praised for his helpful contribution. I am sure that both he and I believe that the provision applies to United Kingdom airspace, but I am surprised that the Minister has not yet clearly said so.

Kelvin Hopkins: I was making the perhaps rash assumption that United Kingdom airspace meant the United Kingdom, and that the term ''United Kingdom'' would cover United Kingdom airspace.

Don Foster: Like the hon. Gentleman, I make that assumption. However, it would be helpful if the Minister would clearly say that that is the meaning, not least because, in discussing shipping, we expressly use the phrase ''United Kingdom waters''.

David Jamieson: I can make it clear that ''United Kingdom'' means United Kingdom airspace, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that there is some difference between that and the maritime provision, in that boarding an aircraft in flight would present more difficulties than boarding a ship that was under way.

Don Foster: I am sure that the Minister is right; I shall not attempt to debate the question of disembarkation in such circumstances. I am glad that we have established that the term covers United Kingdom airspace as well as the ground on which aircraft remain stationary while passengers embark and disembark. It might have been helpful if that had been clearly set out in the Bill.
 My other question may not have an answer. Perhaps I should not even bother to pursue the point, but I am still confused about the definitions. Subsection (2) says: 
''In subsection (1)—'flight function' means a function falling within section 91(1)(a) to (f)''.
 Clause 91(1)(a) to (f) lists a range of items that are specifically defined as ''aviation functions''. I do not understand why those two different terms have the same definition. Nor do I understand why subsection (1)(a) refers to ''a function''. Is it an aviation function, or is it a flight function? Or is it just some other function so far undefined? That is the point that the hon. Member for Vale of York made. There is confusion about which each of those functions is. Is a flight function in subsection (2) the same as an aviation function, and which type of function is a function in subsection (1)(a)?

David Jamieson: The answer to the first part of that last question is no. A wider range of activities than just flight functions is covered. For example, maintenance is covered in clause 91(1)(b). Only flight functions and flight activities on United Kingdom aircraft are covered by clause 99. For that reason we need a suitable narrower definition.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 99, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.